Friday’s New York Times includes an excellent reminder of the benefits of carbon taxes. Elisabeth Rosenthal’s article reports on Ireland’s experience since it adopted such a tax in 2008. As she describes it, the tax on each type of fossil fuel varies according to its carbon dioxide emissions. Similarly, new cars are taxed according to the vehicle’s emissions. Also, households are charged for any trash not recycled.
Measuring the law’s effect is a little tricky because Ireland was in recession for part of the time since 2008. But it appears to be having the intended effect. In 2011, when the economy grew at least a little, emissions were down by 6.7 percent. Overall, they are down by 15 percent since 2008. Financially, there’s no doubt about its positive effects. In the last three years, including 2012, the tax has generated one billion euros (about $1.3 billion) and been a major factor in reducing the country’s budget deficit.
A single measure that both cuts greenhouse gas emissions and puts lots of money in public accounts; you’d think you’d hear more about it in the U.S., more than the occasional NYT article. But from what I can tell, apart from discussions among some economists -- left and right it should be noted -- and environmentalists, there’s mostly silence. Republicans and conservatives are generally trying to ensure that discussion of this, along with anything else related to taxes, is effectively banned. It’s their own version of political correctness.
The Rosenthal article does point out that the law's success in Ireland didn't do anything to help its original sponsors. The government enacting the taxes lost power in last year’s elections. Nonetheless, the tax law remains in place.
I wonder what it will take to open up the possibility for a similar program here?
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Friday, December 28, 2012
Ilva: constitutional conflict
Earlier this month, I had two posts about the Ilva steel plant at Taranto (Puglia), its health threats for local residents, and the Monti government's efforts to provide for clean up while keeping open what has been Europe's largest steel producer.
Back in July, in the face of high rates of cancer and respiratory disease and years of inaction on the part of the plant owners, the local public prosecutor seized the plant. At the beginning of December, the Monti government enacted a "salva Ilva" measure, legislative decree 207, under which the plant is to be permitted to continue to operate while it undertakes clean-up measures. At the time, the prosecutor had said his office would challenge this measure as interfering with his authority and now he has done so.
On December 20, the Taranto prosecutor filed with the Italian Constitutional Court a plea to set aside the 207 decree. The prosecutor's office only announced the action yesterday. The suit maintains that the decree interferes with the magistrates' authority to carry out investigations of Ilva directors and to apply penal sanctions. A decision from the Constitutional Court is expected within the next six weeks.
The legal issues are serious and deserve to be resolved. In the meantime, Taranto residents must wonder when their issues will be addressed, let alone resolved.
Back in July, in the face of high rates of cancer and respiratory disease and years of inaction on the part of the plant owners, the local public prosecutor seized the plant. At the beginning of December, the Monti government enacted a "salva Ilva" measure, legislative decree 207, under which the plant is to be permitted to continue to operate while it undertakes clean-up measures. At the time, the prosecutor had said his office would challenge this measure as interfering with his authority and now he has done so.
On December 20, the Taranto prosecutor filed with the Italian Constitutional Court a plea to set aside the 207 decree. The prosecutor's office only announced the action yesterday. The suit maintains that the decree interferes with the magistrates' authority to carry out investigations of Ilva directors and to apply penal sanctions. A decision from the Constitutional Court is expected within the next six weeks.
The legal issues are serious and deserve to be resolved. In the meantime, Taranto residents must wonder when their issues will be addressed, let alone resolved.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Governance for the Arctic?
It's as if two French environmentalists just read the article in the current New Yorker on Arctic Ocean shipping. In an op-ed piece in today’s Le Monde they argue the need for new international arrangements to protect the Arctic. The proposal comes from Jérôme Beilin and Nicolas Imbert who are, respectively, program director at Ateliers de la terre executive director of Green Cross France
Beilin and Imbert recognize that the Arctic ice cap is melting and, in the short term, there’s little we can do about it. What we need to recognize, they argue, is that as the cap melts it’s opening up new shipping routes and new possibilities for mineral exploitation. The U.S. Geologic Survey, they note, estimates that the newly open Arctic areas could contain a fifth of worldwide reserves of oil and gas. Also, the newly accessible waters could eventually be handling a similar percentage of international maritime commerce.
Inevitably, this much human activity -- drilling, mining and shipping -- will have an impact on animal habitats and general environmental conditions.
Much of the debate at the moment, they say, is over national “exclusive economic zones,” (EEZ) a zone prescribed under the terms of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which can extend up to 200 nautical miles beyond a country’s coastline. Certain proposals have advanced the idea that, to compensate for environmental impact, countries extracting resources from an EEZ be required to pay from five to seven percent of the value of these resources into a “green fund.” Beilin and Imbert think the idea is “seductive,” but that the Arctic oceans need a more concrete structure of governance. They propose enlarging the responsibilities of the International Seabed Authority and establishing regular scientific monitoring of Arctic conditions and sanctions applied to those violating agreed upon standards. And they call for citizen mobilization on behalf of Arctic preservation.
Their proposals seem more than reasonable. Can nations make progress in this area when they can't in the climate negotiations (i.e., Doha)? I hope so.
Beilin and Imbert recognize that the Arctic ice cap is melting and, in the short term, there’s little we can do about it. What we need to recognize, they argue, is that as the cap melts it’s opening up new shipping routes and new possibilities for mineral exploitation. The U.S. Geologic Survey, they note, estimates that the newly open Arctic areas could contain a fifth of worldwide reserves of oil and gas. Also, the newly accessible waters could eventually be handling a similar percentage of international maritime commerce.
Inevitably, this much human activity -- drilling, mining and shipping -- will have an impact on animal habitats and general environmental conditions.
Much of the debate at the moment, they say, is over national “exclusive economic zones,” (EEZ) a zone prescribed under the terms of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which can extend up to 200 nautical miles beyond a country’s coastline. Certain proposals have advanced the idea that, to compensate for environmental impact, countries extracting resources from an EEZ be required to pay from five to seven percent of the value of these resources into a “green fund.” Beilin and Imbert think the idea is “seductive,” but that the Arctic oceans need a more concrete structure of governance. They propose enlarging the responsibilities of the International Seabed Authority and establishing regular scientific monitoring of Arctic conditions and sanctions applied to those violating agreed upon standards. And they call for citizen mobilization on behalf of Arctic preservation.
Their proposals seem more than reasonable. Can nations make progress in this area when they can't in the climate negotiations (i.e., Doha)? I hope so.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
A request
I'm still relatively new to blogging. I started posting in September and didn't get to putting something up regularly until early November. So I'm still learning some Blogger features. For instance, page views. Early on, Blogger stats might show me just one or two page views per post, sometimes none at all. Lately, though, the numbers are up. A post from last week shows nearly 40 page views. Only a droplet compared to what I imagine established blogs receive, but it seems encouraging. Or at least I think it is. I can't be completely sure, because I don't know exactly what "page views" means. I think they come from real people. But I'm not 100 percent sure.
Thus this request. If you're a real person and if you stop in, could you leave some kind of note. Just "Hi" would be enough, but if you felt like leaving more of a comment, that would be great. And it would be especially great if you had suggestions on how I could do this better.
Thanks.
Thus this request. If you're a real person and if you stop in, could you leave some kind of note. Just "Hi" would be enough, but if you felt like leaving more of a comment, that would be great. And it would be especially great if you had suggestions on how I could do this better.
Thanks.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Sort of green quarrying
I know unsettling environmental news doesn’t stop just because of Christmas. But I came across a brief, encouraging story from Brittany, in France, involving an environmental organization and a quarry operators’ association that I thought I’d pass along.
It seems Unicem* Bretagne, the quarry operators’ association, had been looking to improve its public image and, a few years ago, contacted Bretagne Vivante, the environmentalists, to talk about how their operations might better respect the environment. Notwithstanding they were digging large holes in the ground, they were interested in moderating the impact. Bretagne Vivante, notwithstanding its opposition to many of the quarries, was willing to talk.
Apparently, the conversations have been fruitful. For example, quarrying has been suspended in areas where certain rare types of birds nest. (The article didn’t say, though, if the birds came back the following year and found their nesting areas gone.) More recently, the two organizations signed a formal agreement detailing the terms of their working relationship. Among other things, operators have now agreed to open quarries to Bretagne Vivante inspection and to provide the organization with information they’ve been collecting for many years on plant and animal life in the quarry areas.
In a country known, unfairly or not, for ideological confrontations, this stands out as an example of remarkably pragmatic cooperation.
* "L'Union nationale des industries de carrières et de matériaux de construction."
It seems Unicem* Bretagne, the quarry operators’ association, had been looking to improve its public image and, a few years ago, contacted Bretagne Vivante, the environmentalists, to talk about how their operations might better respect the environment. Notwithstanding they were digging large holes in the ground, they were interested in moderating the impact. Bretagne Vivante, notwithstanding its opposition to many of the quarries, was willing to talk.
Apparently, the conversations have been fruitful. For example, quarrying has been suspended in areas where certain rare types of birds nest. (The article didn’t say, though, if the birds came back the following year and found their nesting areas gone.) More recently, the two organizations signed a formal agreement detailing the terms of their working relationship. Among other things, operators have now agreed to open quarries to Bretagne Vivante inspection and to provide the organization with information they’ve been collecting for many years on plant and animal life in the quarry areas.
In a country known, unfairly or not, for ideological confrontations, this stands out as an example of remarkably pragmatic cooperation.
* "L'Union nationale des industries de carrières et de matériaux de construction."
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Frankenfish?
I find myself in a somewhat awkward position here. I really look forward to genetic engineering’s potential to improve human health. But why do the same techniques applied to my food make be nervous, if not squeamish? I’ll have to keep working on that. Right now I just want to draw attention to a development that makes me very nervous -- and squeamish.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) finding that genetically engineered salmon would have “no significant impact” on the environment and that the fish is “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.” The fish have been engineered to grow to full size in 18 months, about half the time it takes for natural Atlantic salmon. I read this and then I think, how many times have we heard similar reassurances about other technologies, nuclear power for example, and then learned of risks ignored or downplayed. Especially when it comes to messing with animals and natural habitats, it seems like the very highest standard of care should be required.
Last Friday, the agency published the finding in a draft environmental assessment. The assessment will be open for public comment during the next 60 days and it’s likely to draw lots of them. I talked about the FDA action with a friend whose work at another federal agency involves fish. She raised questions about the FDA’s use of the shorter, less comprehensive “environmental assessment” as the basis for the finding, instead of the stricter “environmental impact statement.” She indicated this could likely be one of the bases for legal challenges to the FDA’s action. I hope so.
AquABounty, the company that developed the fish, assures that it poses no threat to wild salmon. The AquAdvantage salmon, as they’ve been branded, would be raised in secure tanks away from the ocean and would be sterilized. The FDA seems to have accepted this, although critics have questioned both the security of the tanks and the reliability of the sterilization.
The Center for Food Safety severely criticized the FDA action, declaring that “The GE [genetically engineered] salmon has no socially redeeming value; it’s bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment.”
The Center also charged that the FDA had ignored concerns from more than 40 members of Congress, 300 environmental, consumer, and animal welfare organizations, and 400,000 public comments.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) finding that genetically engineered salmon would have “no significant impact” on the environment and that the fish is “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.” The fish have been engineered to grow to full size in 18 months, about half the time it takes for natural Atlantic salmon. I read this and then I think, how many times have we heard similar reassurances about other technologies, nuclear power for example, and then learned of risks ignored or downplayed. Especially when it comes to messing with animals and natural habitats, it seems like the very highest standard of care should be required.
Last Friday, the agency published the finding in a draft environmental assessment. The assessment will be open for public comment during the next 60 days and it’s likely to draw lots of them. I talked about the FDA action with a friend whose work at another federal agency involves fish. She raised questions about the FDA’s use of the shorter, less comprehensive “environmental assessment” as the basis for the finding, instead of the stricter “environmental impact statement.” She indicated this could likely be one of the bases for legal challenges to the FDA’s action. I hope so.
AquABounty, the company that developed the fish, assures that it poses no threat to wild salmon. The AquAdvantage salmon, as they’ve been branded, would be raised in secure tanks away from the ocean and would be sterilized. The FDA seems to have accepted this, although critics have questioned both the security of the tanks and the reliability of the sterilization.
The Center for Food Safety severely criticized the FDA action, declaring that “The GE [genetically engineered] salmon has no socially redeeming value; it’s bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment.”
The Center also charged that the FDA had ignored concerns from more than 40 members of Congress, 300 environmental, consumer, and animal welfare organizations, and 400,000 public comments.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Rebuilding at Breezy Point
Post-Sandy calls to lower risks along the coasts are one thing; implementing them is always something else. Today’s New York Times includes a good article illustrating the difficulties of moving people away from exposed coasts or enforcing new building rules. Reporters visited Breezy Point in Queens, an area hit hard by the hurricane, as well as several other spots along the New York and New Jersey coast. Just about two months after the storm, they wanted to get an idea of what residents were doing. Were they rebuilding pretty much what they’d had before? Were they rebuilding on pilings? Were they leaving?
The reporters found some of each, but many seem determined to rebuild, on pilings if they could afford it, or simply some version of what they had before. Meanwhile, state and local officials are considering new flood maps, stricter building codes, and revised land-use rules that, in some cases, could turn former beach front neighborhoods into parks.
The two activities -- the rebuilding and the building and land-use changes -- are proceeding at two different speeds; the first quickly and the second not so. It will surely get complicated when they meet. Why do I suspect the next storm will find nearly as many vulnerable structures in its path?
The reporters found some of each, but many seem determined to rebuild, on pilings if they could afford it, or simply some version of what they had before. Meanwhile, state and local officials are considering new flood maps, stricter building codes, and revised land-use rules that, in some cases, could turn former beach front neighborhoods into parks.
The two activities -- the rebuilding and the building and land-use changes -- are proceeding at two different speeds; the first quickly and the second not so. It will surely get complicated when they meet. Why do I suspect the next storm will find nearly as many vulnerable structures in its path?
Friday, December 21, 2012
Notre-Dame-des-Landes 2
A few days ago, I wrote that, as of that point, I'd only seen one article providing background and perspective on the conflict over the proposed Nantes airport at near-by Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Now I've found a second. Along with one in Le Figaro that I linked to in the earlier post, there’s now piece in this week’s Nouvel Observateur that does a good job of summarizing the conflict. Unfortunately, the magazine hasn’t yet included it on its open-access web site so I can’t link to it.
So to summarize, proponents argue that the new airport is needed to replace the existing Nantes-Atlantique Airport, which they maintain will reach its limit of four million annual passengers in another six years. The single runway, they say, is insufficient. They also want an airport large enough to handle international flights, which could help to open up the region to international development.
Opponents counter that the existing airport, if managed correctly, could actually handle many more than four million passengers a year. They point to the airport serving Beauvais (northwest of Paris) that handles nearly 10 million passengers a year on a single runway.
The article describes prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault’s efforts to find a basis for compromise. But at this point, the article suggests, it’s difficult to see what that might be. Local authorities want to build some kind of airport on the new site. Opponents insist that the existing airport can be made to serve for years to come.
The article suggest a larger issue may be driving opposition to the Notre-Dame-des-Landes:
So to summarize, proponents argue that the new airport is needed to replace the existing Nantes-Atlantique Airport, which they maintain will reach its limit of four million annual passengers in another six years. The single runway, they say, is insufficient. They also want an airport large enough to handle international flights, which could help to open up the region to international development.
Opponents counter that the existing airport, if managed correctly, could actually handle many more than four million passengers a year. They point to the airport serving Beauvais (northwest of Paris) that handles nearly 10 million passengers a year on a single runway.
The article describes prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault’s efforts to find a basis for compromise. But at this point, the article suggests, it’s difficult to see what that might be. Local authorities want to build some kind of airport on the new site. Opponents insist that the existing airport can be made to serve for years to come.
The article suggest a larger issue may be driving opposition to the Notre-Dame-des-Landes:
“A tort ou à raison, l’aéroport est devenu en 2012 l’étendard national d’une puisante jacquerie contre l’artificialisation des terres qui fait perdre tous les huit ans l’équivalent d’un départment en terres cultivables.” [“For better or worse, the airport has become in 2012 the symbol of a powerful revolt against forces consuming open land that every eight years eat up the equivalent of the average-sized department.”]In 1989, a fight over constructing a dam on the Loire River in the department of the Haute-Loire took five years to resolve. Some of the people at Notre-Dame-des-Landes took part in that fight. This one could also go on for a while.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Cycling made part of EU transportation plans
The map below the stuff of daydreams and maybe some day reality. The map traces 14 bicycle routes up and down and back and forth across Europe. Some are more developed than others, but all of them can be used for long-distance tourism or short trips, even commuting if one happens to be along your route to work. I know something of Route 6, the one running from the Atlantic to the Black Sea. Most of the route in France follows the Loire River and Lynda and I once rode a rented tandem along a few kilometers.
Even though the routes have been mapped, much work remains. Surfacing, signage, by-passes, connectors, the sorts of details needed to make the routes accessible and safe, which, in turn, can foster tourism-related businesses, like bed & breakfasts and bike touring companies. This has already been the experience along the Loire where "La Loire à Vélo" is nearly as familiar a part of the valley's tourist landscape as the chateaux. The European Cycling Federation (ECF) hopes to see the network completed by 2020.
Earlier this week, network supporters, and day dreamers like me, celebrated a decision by the E.U.'s Transport and Tourism Commission that should help make this possible. The Commission voted to include the cycling network within funding guidelines for Europe's Trans-European Transport Network. The vote means that cycling will be eligible for several kinds of EU financial help, including grants, loans, and loan guarantees. The Commission's decision still has to be ratified by the EU Parliament next year. And I suspect individual cycling projects will have to fight their way through national and local authorities. Still, the ECF and others are celebrating because it gets them into the game.
.jpg) |
| Source: EuroVelo Network. http://www.eurovelo.org/routes/ |
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Shipping through the Arctic
The Arctic Sea is opening up to shipping. I’d heard a little about this, and now an article in this week’s New Yorker describes a voyage on this new transportation frontier. If you don’t have a subscription, it’s worth buying this issue. Last July, Keith Gessen travelled aboard a Danish ship carrying iron ore from Murmansk, Russia to Huanghua, China. As he recounts the trip Gessen talks about life on the ship, the melting ice cap, the disruption of the habitat for fish and seals and polar bears, and the terrible new Chinese harbor. In many ways it’s a relatively routine story of time aboard ship -- which is what makes it scary.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Prizes for innovative green businesses
Legambiente, the Italian environmental organization I mentioned a couple of days ago, just announced the 2012 winners of its Premio Innovazione Amica dell'Ambiente (Friend of the Environment Innovation Prize). The prize, in its 12th year, is a way to highlight innovative green businesses. It's also a chance to nudge Italian businesses that they should be spending more on research and development. The announcement notes that Italian companies spend only 1.27 percent of GNP on research and development, less than a third of Finland's 3.97 percent (U.S. businesses invest about 2.7 percent).
Some examples of the winners:
BikeDistrict, an on-line map service in Milan providing directions for travel by bike, including information about road surfaces and degrees of safety. The service is still in beta form.
Car2Go, the car-sharing service, which has been in Washington, D.C. for about a year, is a subsidiary of the Daimler Corporation and started in Germany. Despite the prize, Italy is still waiting for the service.
Grow the Planet, a social network concept dedicated to small-scale, home gardening.
My favorite, though, was not one of the top eight prize winners (of 165 entries). This was "Ecocapsula," refillable capsules for Nespresso and similar single-shot coffee machines. They let you buy and use your own coffee and the company says the capsules can be reused up to 300 times. If I could find these here, I might be tempted to buy one of the machines.
The prize also reminds me that there's much more to the country than tourism and troubled governments.
Some examples of the winners:
BikeDistrict, an on-line map service in Milan providing directions for travel by bike, including information about road surfaces and degrees of safety. The service is still in beta form.
Car2Go, the car-sharing service, which has been in Washington, D.C. for about a year, is a subsidiary of the Daimler Corporation and started in Germany. Despite the prize, Italy is still waiting for the service.
Grow the Planet, a social network concept dedicated to small-scale, home gardening.
My favorite, though, was not one of the top eight prize winners (of 165 entries). This was "Ecocapsula," refillable capsules for Nespresso and similar single-shot coffee machines. They let you buy and use your own coffee and the company says the capsules can be reused up to 300 times. If I could find these here, I might be tempted to buy one of the machines.
The prize also reminds me that there's much more to the country than tourism and troubled governments.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Menhaden protection
I’m not a fisherman. I have memories of sitting for what seemed like forever in a small boat on an Iowa lake fishing for barely edible fish like bullheads and bluegills and the appropriately-named crappies. Still, I’m pleased to see yesterday’s decision by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to cut by 20 percent the catch limit for menhaden.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Remember the Costa Concordia
Thinking of taking a Mediterranean cruise, maybe running along the beautiful Italian coast, stopping in at scenic spots along the way? Not to be a grinch, but remember the Costa Concordia? Just over a month from today will be the one-year anniversary of the wreck of that sky-scraper sized cruise ship. On 13 January of this year, the ship, running close to Giglio Island off the west coast of Italy, hit a rock that tore a long hole in the hull, flooding the engine room and causing the ship to run aground against the island. At least 30 people died. The ship is still there as an elaborate salvage operation tries to remove it.
Legambiente, the Italian environmental organization, has a short note on its web site today reminding people of the disaster. The group calls on responsible public officials to proceed as quickly as possible with the removal and with the greatest possible transparence. Apparently recent storms have caused the hull to shift slightly and to release toxic liquids into the surrounding waters.
The Costa Concordia was a case of a captain’s bad judgment. But the tragedy focused attention, at least for a little while, on the enormous number of cruise ships running along the Italian coasts and on some of the issues they create. For example in Venice. In 2011, some 800 ships anchored in the lagoon bringing in an estimated 2 million passengers. This was nearly double the number of ships arriving six years earlier with more than double the number of passengers. These ships may be overwhelming an already fragile historic treasure. Underwater turbulence from propellers appears to be damaging building foundations. And it’s estimated that the ships collectively produce air pollution equivalent to 14,000 cars. Environmentalists and some local officials are pushing to bar the ships from the lagoon and relocate them to an off-shore facility.
Legambiente, the Italian environmental organization, has a short note on its web site today reminding people of the disaster. The group calls on responsible public officials to proceed as quickly as possible with the removal and with the greatest possible transparence. Apparently recent storms have caused the hull to shift slightly and to release toxic liquids into the surrounding waters.
The Costa Concordia was a case of a captain’s bad judgment. But the tragedy focused attention, at least for a little while, on the enormous number of cruise ships running along the Italian coasts and on some of the issues they create. For example in Venice. In 2011, some 800 ships anchored in the lagoon bringing in an estimated 2 million passengers. This was nearly double the number of ships arriving six years earlier with more than double the number of passengers. These ships may be overwhelming an already fragile historic treasure. Underwater turbulence from propellers appears to be damaging building foundations. And it’s estimated that the ships collectively produce air pollution equivalent to 14,000 cars. Environmentalists and some local officials are pushing to bar the ships from the lagoon and relocate them to an off-shore facility.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes
The dispute at Notre-Dame-des-Landes over construction of a new regional airport is one I’ve only half followed. The city of Nantes and regional development authorities want to create an new airport serving the city and central-western France. Supporters argue it's needed to replace the existing Nantes airport that's approaching saturation in terms of its capacity to handle planes and passengers. Environmental organizations have challenged this rationale and groups of activists currently occupy part of the lands scheduled for development.
Tuesday of this week the Tribunal de grande instance of Saint-Nazaire (generally equivalent to a U.S. superior court of original jurisdiction) ruled that the préfet of the department of Loire-Atlantique and the entity Aéroport du Grand Ouest, a subsidiary of the private conglomerate Vinci, had authority to dismantle a collection of temporary huts constructed by the activists. At the same time, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has called together a commission to start a dialogue with the opponents. Ayrault, previously mayor of Nantes, has been a long-time airport supporter. The departmental préfet has said that, with his authority clarified, he'll act to clear away the huts at the “opportune moment,” suggesting he may wait a bit while the the government tries to start the dialogue process. Meanwhile, the two sides are in a face-off.
Generally, it seems the French left has been of two minds about the project. More traditional Socialists tend to see in the airport a large project creating jobs and regional economic growth; the facility would cover approximately 4,500 acres or about 7 square miles. Building and operating the airport would provide jobs and, presumably, boost economic development around the Loire estuary and in Brittany. Younger, more environmentally-oriented Socialists see a large project consuming valuable farm land and natural habitats without sufficient economic justification.
As I’ve said, I’m coming late to this issue. Even so, as I've looked it’s been hard to find anyone who’s stepped back to examine the underlying issues. Most reporting seems to have been limited to descriptions of the on-site demonstrations or the Holland government’s awkward political situation with Ayrault, the prime minister, a supporter and Cécile Duflot, the housing minister, opposed. (Duflot was previously head of Europe Écologie Les Verts, the environmental party allied with the Socialists in the last elections and now occupying several posts in the Holland government.) There is, however, a useful article in Le Figaro from the middle of last week with some context that seems to support the opponents’ arguments. The article suggests that the existing Nantes airport may not be as close to capacity as suggested and possible renovation and expansion could extend its utility for some years.
Tuesday of this week the Tribunal de grande instance of Saint-Nazaire (generally equivalent to a U.S. superior court of original jurisdiction) ruled that the préfet of the department of Loire-Atlantique and the entity Aéroport du Grand Ouest, a subsidiary of the private conglomerate Vinci, had authority to dismantle a collection of temporary huts constructed by the activists. At the same time, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has called together a commission to start a dialogue with the opponents. Ayrault, previously mayor of Nantes, has been a long-time airport supporter. The departmental préfet has said that, with his authority clarified, he'll act to clear away the huts at the “opportune moment,” suggesting he may wait a bit while the the government tries to start the dialogue process. Meanwhile, the two sides are in a face-off.
Generally, it seems the French left has been of two minds about the project. More traditional Socialists tend to see in the airport a large project creating jobs and regional economic growth; the facility would cover approximately 4,500 acres or about 7 square miles. Building and operating the airport would provide jobs and, presumably, boost economic development around the Loire estuary and in Brittany. Younger, more environmentally-oriented Socialists see a large project consuming valuable farm land and natural habitats without sufficient economic justification.
As I’ve said, I’m coming late to this issue. Even so, as I've looked it’s been hard to find anyone who’s stepped back to examine the underlying issues. Most reporting seems to have been limited to descriptions of the on-site demonstrations or the Holland government’s awkward political situation with Ayrault, the prime minister, a supporter and Cécile Duflot, the housing minister, opposed. (Duflot was previously head of Europe Écologie Les Verts, the environmental party allied with the Socialists in the last elections and now occupying several posts in the Holland government.) There is, however, a useful article in Le Figaro from the middle of last week with some context that seems to support the opponents’ arguments. The article suggests that the existing Nantes airport may not be as close to capacity as suggested and possible renovation and expansion could extend its utility for some years.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Tax on natural gas?
Suddenly people are excited about the U.S. becoming energy independent. Somehow it seems this happened while I was looking in the other direction. The reason for the excitement is clearly tied to expectations for domestic natural gas development. Sunday’s Washington Post, for example, included two pieces dealing with the potential for not only supplying domestic needs for natural gas but also for providing exports to world markets.
One of these, a column by Steven Pearlstein, reviews the debate over allowing exports vs. keeping supplies at home. The former means prices will go up while the latter would keep them lower. Pearlstein favors allowing exports but, at the same time, applying a federal tax at the wellhead to limit gas company profits and ease the impact of higher prices on consumers.
The idea of the tax, whatever its political possibilities, seems a good one. But what if it were made part of a broader, longer-term policy of energy independence? The U.S. does have the potential for very large natural gas supplies. But even if all of the “technically recoverable” supplies became available, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that, at current consumption rates, these would supply domestic needs for 92 years. That’s a long time, but it’s not forever, far from it. It’s likely that many of the babies born today will live that long. And, although gas-fired power plants pollute less than do coal-fired plants, as the Natural Resources Defense Council points out, natural gas is still a fossil fuel and it’s use does add CO2 to the atmosphere.
My sense is that most of the debate over natural gas production has concentrated on “fracking” techniques and their environmental risks. These are important issues. From what I can tell, most regulation has been left to the state governments, who have been more interested in tax revenues than environmental protection.
Meanwhile, domestic production of natural gas has increased remarkably to the point that there is now this pressure on the Energy Department to license exports. This makes Pearstein’s tax proposal really interesting. But I would hope that the discussion about any tax -- if there is any discussion -- would be connected to plans for an energy transition involving more efficient use (i.e., conservation) and renewables.
One of these, a column by Steven Pearlstein, reviews the debate over allowing exports vs. keeping supplies at home. The former means prices will go up while the latter would keep them lower. Pearlstein favors allowing exports but, at the same time, applying a federal tax at the wellhead to limit gas company profits and ease the impact of higher prices on consumers.
The idea of the tax, whatever its political possibilities, seems a good one. But what if it were made part of a broader, longer-term policy of energy independence? The U.S. does have the potential for very large natural gas supplies. But even if all of the “technically recoverable” supplies became available, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that, at current consumption rates, these would supply domestic needs for 92 years. That’s a long time, but it’s not forever, far from it. It’s likely that many of the babies born today will live that long. And, although gas-fired power plants pollute less than do coal-fired plants, as the Natural Resources Defense Council points out, natural gas is still a fossil fuel and it’s use does add CO2 to the atmosphere.
My sense is that most of the debate over natural gas production has concentrated on “fracking” techniques and their environmental risks. These are important issues. From what I can tell, most regulation has been left to the state governments, who have been more interested in tax revenues than environmental protection.
Meanwhile, domestic production of natural gas has increased remarkably to the point that there is now this pressure on the Energy Department to license exports. This makes Pearstein’s tax proposal really interesting. But I would hope that the discussion about any tax -- if there is any discussion -- would be connected to plans for an energy transition involving more efficient use (i.e., conservation) and renewables.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Cities and zoning and sustainability
Monday’s Le Monde includes a special supplement on sustainable growth and
one of the articles deals with the connection between urban life and environmental sustainability. The article points out that by 2050, 70 percent of the world’s population will be living in urban areas versus just over 50 percent today. Already, however, 80 percent of CO2 emissions come from urban areas.
It’s hard to bring this to bear in settings like the current revisions of Washington, D.C.’s zoning regulations. Yet this is one of the areas where positive steps could be taken to reduce those emissions. Obviously, the more people use cars to get around, the more gas is being burned and the more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. We should be doing everything we can to discourage cars and encourage Metro, right? What happens, however, when planning officials, ever so carefully, suggest that new zoning rules might reduce on-street parking in some neighborhoods close to Metro stops? Neighborhood list-serves start buzzing and people start mobilizing their neighbors against the idea. In Northwest Washington, D.C. it seems almost any hint of higher density development around Metro stations provokes similar reactions.
one of the articles deals with the connection between urban life and environmental sustainability. The article points out that by 2050, 70 percent of the world’s population will be living in urban areas versus just over 50 percent today. Already, however, 80 percent of CO2 emissions come from urban areas.
It’s hard to bring this to bear in settings like the current revisions of Washington, D.C.’s zoning regulations. Yet this is one of the areas where positive steps could be taken to reduce those emissions. Obviously, the more people use cars to get around, the more gas is being burned and the more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. We should be doing everything we can to discourage cars and encourage Metro, right? What happens, however, when planning officials, ever so carefully, suggest that new zoning rules might reduce on-street parking in some neighborhoods close to Metro stops? Neighborhood list-serves start buzzing and people start mobilizing their neighbors against the idea. In Northwest Washington, D.C. it seems almost any hint of higher density development around Metro stations provokes similar reactions.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Doha 4
The Doha (Qatar) conference on climate change closed yesterday after negotiators stayed on an extra day trying to produce something that might justify their time and effort. In the end, according to reports, they didn’t come up with much. Basically, it seems participants adopted the strategy of second-rate soccer teams deciding to kick the ball down field and hope.
The conference ended with agreement only to maintain the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and to work to have a new agreement in place by 2015, which would take effect in 2020. There was, however, no agreement at all on any details. For example, on the issue loss and damage due to extreme weather, participants approved language calling for more financial and technical assistance to poorer countries, but remained silent on any mechanism to marshall and apply such aid.
I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised. Extreme storms, like Hurricane Sandy in the U.S. and Typhoon Bopha in the Philippines, have killed large number of people and caused billions of dollars of damage. Drought conditions in the American midlands and other places in the world are destroying crops and disrupting river transport. More people, it seems, recognize the connection of these conditions to warmer temperatures in the oceans and atmosphere. Yet the effects of the 2008 economic crisis still hang over most countries, both industrialized and developing. In the U.S. and Europe it’s hard for political leaders to talk about cutting fossil fuel use when they’re trying to stimulate economic growth and create new jobs.
Next year's meeting will be in Poland.
The conference ended with agreement only to maintain the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and to work to have a new agreement in place by 2015, which would take effect in 2020. There was, however, no agreement at all on any details. For example, on the issue loss and damage due to extreme weather, participants approved language calling for more financial and technical assistance to poorer countries, but remained silent on any mechanism to marshall and apply such aid.
I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised. Extreme storms, like Hurricane Sandy in the U.S. and Typhoon Bopha in the Philippines, have killed large number of people and caused billions of dollars of damage. Drought conditions in the American midlands and other places in the world are destroying crops and disrupting river transport. More people, it seems, recognize the connection of these conditions to warmer temperatures in the oceans and atmosphere. Yet the effects of the 2008 economic crisis still hang over most countries, both industrialized and developing. In the U.S. and Europe it’s hard for political leaders to talk about cutting fossil fuel use when they’re trying to stimulate economic growth and create new jobs.
Next year's meeting will be in Poland.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Berlusconi in, Monti out
It’s hard not to be captivated by the current drama of Italy’s politics. It's sort of like watching a demolition derby where a tank of an old Lincoln Town Car tries to destroy all the beat-up Fords and Chevrolets on the track. Silvio Berlusconi, after announcing his retirement, is back with a vengeance. He says he’s running again for prime minister, and, notwithstanding recent polls which give him and his party only about 18 percent, he says he's in it to win. Alexander Stille describes his return as a case of moving from tragedy to farce. (I wish his La Repubblica columns were available in English. Update: Turns out this one is, in the New Republic. )
Berlusconi made his announcement claiming that Italy is worse off after a year of Mario Monti’s government than it was when he -- Il Cavaliere -- was forced to resign just over a year ago in November 2011. He back to save Italy once again, he claims. It should be remembered that he resigned because because financial markets, which to say the least, distrusted his management of the government, were threatening to push the country into default.
Berlusconi didn't just announce his return to politics. A couple of days ago, he instructed his party members in the Chamber of Deputies and in the Senate, all of whom owe their seats to him, to start voting against Monti government proposals. These votes wouldn’t automatically bring down the government as long as other parties continue to provide support. But that support, in the Senate at least, is questionable from vote to vote.
So today Monti announced his resignation effective as soon as the legislature passes a budget. And elections, which had been tentatively scheduled for 10 March, may now happen earlier. It's been suggested that Monti wants to give Berlusconi as little time as possible to use his government as a punching bag. He may also calculate that the sooner elections are held the more voters will likely remember who it was that ended a very popular government.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Hurricanes in the Mediterranean
As the oceans rise and warm up, Italy, like states and cities along the U.S. East Coast, is becoming aware of the increased threat of ocean-generated storms. Up to now, the most violent storms it has had to face have been periodic tornados. One, in fact, hit the unfortunate city of Taranto only a couple of weeks ago.
An article in today's La Repubblica reports that weather scientists in Europe, analyzing conditions in the Mediterranean, now think that warmer water is aggravating the intensity of storms and some of these may now deserve to be termed hurricanes. With this in mind, Italian weather experts have reinterpreted several earlier storms. For example, in 2006 one with wind of 145 km/hr (90 mph) did major damage in Salento, near the west coast, south of Salerno. (A category one hurricane has winds of at least 119 km/h or 74 mph.)
The possibility of more such storms raises concerns for areas along the coasts.
For example, a hurricane-strength storm could return low-lying areas along the coasts, like the Agro Pontino south of Rome, to their former condition as marsh lands. Like their colleagues in the U.S., Italian analysts and engineers are just beginning to think about protective measures.
An article in today's La Repubblica reports that weather scientists in Europe, analyzing conditions in the Mediterranean, now think that warmer water is aggravating the intensity of storms and some of these may now deserve to be termed hurricanes. With this in mind, Italian weather experts have reinterpreted several earlier storms. For example, in 2006 one with wind of 145 km/hr (90 mph) did major damage in Salento, near the west coast, south of Salerno. (A category one hurricane has winds of at least 119 km/h or 74 mph.)
The possibility of more such storms raises concerns for areas along the coasts.
For example, a hurricane-strength storm could return low-lying areas along the coasts, like the Agro Pontino south of Rome, to their former condition as marsh lands. Like their colleagues in the U.S., Italian analysts and engineers are just beginning to think about protective measures.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Fossil fuel subsidies in Italy
While Italy struggles to bring public revenues and expenditures into some kind of balance, Legambiente, the country's leading environmental organization, is suggesting it look hard at the public subsidies stimulating the use of fossil fuels. Timed to coincide with the Doha meeting and with pending economic development legislation in Italy, the organization has just released a report on the extent of Italian public subsidies for fossil fuels.
The report refers to International Energy Agency estimates that, worldwide, governments provide a total of $630 billion in subsidies to agriculture, transportation, and the oil industry which in one way or another promote use of fossil fuels. Just eliminating the subsidies -- without even talking about a carbon tax -- would do much to reduce their use.
In Italy, Legambiente estimates that direct public subsidies amount to 4.62 billion euros. These go chiefly to trucking, energy utilities, and energy intensive businesses. The organization estimates that another 4.59 billion euros in subsidies is provided for things like highway construction and oil and gas drilling. The report notes that Minister of the Environment, Corrado Clini, is no record stating that these subsidies will be reduced. On the other hand, the Minister of Economic Development, Corrado Passera, hasn't show any support for the idea.
The report refers to International Energy Agency estimates that, worldwide, governments provide a total of $630 billion in subsidies to agriculture, transportation, and the oil industry which in one way or another promote use of fossil fuels. Just eliminating the subsidies -- without even talking about a carbon tax -- would do much to reduce their use.
In Italy, Legambiente estimates that direct public subsidies amount to 4.62 billion euros. These go chiefly to trucking, energy utilities, and energy intensive businesses. The organization estimates that another 4.59 billion euros in subsidies is provided for things like highway construction and oil and gas drilling. The report notes that Minister of the Environment, Corrado Clini, is no record stating that these subsidies will be reduced. On the other hand, the Minister of Economic Development, Corrado Passera, hasn't show any support for the idea.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Doha 3
At mid-point, reports from the Doha climate change conference don’t sound encouraging.
A Le Monde reporter describes a meeting with no energy where several delegates have told him that, despite the seriousness of the issue, they just “don’t have their heart in it.” John Broder, in his New York Times "Green" blog, also refers to the conference’s “typical doldrums.” Much of the discussion has been about money: how much will be raised by developed nations and transferred to poorer nations to help with adjustments to the impacts of climate change. So far, discussions have been at lower, more technical levels. Today things move up to the political level as ministerial delegations start to arrive.
The conference ends Friday.
A Le Monde reporter describes a meeting with no energy where several delegates have told him that, despite the seriousness of the issue, they just “don’t have their heart in it.” John Broder, in his New York Times "Green" blog, also refers to the conference’s “typical doldrums.” Much of the discussion has been about money: how much will be raised by developed nations and transferred to poorer nations to help with adjustments to the impacts of climate change. So far, discussions have been at lower, more technical levels. Today things move up to the political level as ministerial delegations start to arrive.
The conference ends Friday.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Carbon tax in the U.S.?
Elizabeth Kolber, in the current New Yorker, [subscription required] reminds us that global warming is a very large problem of externalities, that is, costs of private actions imposed on the general public. People using fossil fuels -- car owners and utilities burning coal and gas -- discharge CO2 into the atmosphere, add to the greenhouse effect, which heats up the planet, which ends up creating the havoc of storms like Hurricane Sandy. The idea behind a tax on these fuels is to require users to pay for some of the environmental costs they help create with their CO2 emissions. A carbon tax would have other benefits. She cites a Congressional Budget Office report stating that a “relatively modest” tax on gasoline and other fossil fuels could cut the federal deficit in half. How could this not be politically attractive?
So how attractive is the idea? Kolbert reports considerable support from both liberal and conservative economists and quite a number of corporations, including ExxonMobil. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, so far at least, isn’t at all attracted to the idea. Maybe, after “fiscal cliff” issue have been resolved, the President could turn his attention to climate change, an issue he has repeatedly said has a high priority.
Sadly, though, even after the current tax and budget issues have been resolved, House Republicans promise a new confrontation over the debt ceiling. And this sort of action is likely to continue at least through the 2014 congressional elections. In a sense, the carbon tax is another example of how House Republicans are stalemating efforts to deal with obvious public problems. In this case they’re not doing it directly; yet, by opposing virtually every significant legislative proposal, they raise the political costs for the Administration, thereby limiting the range of what can be proposed to just a handful of critical issues.
So how attractive is the idea? Kolbert reports considerable support from both liberal and conservative economists and quite a number of corporations, including ExxonMobil. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, so far at least, isn’t at all attracted to the idea. Maybe, after “fiscal cliff” issue have been resolved, the President could turn his attention to climate change, an issue he has repeatedly said has a high priority.
Sadly, though, even after the current tax and budget issues have been resolved, House Republicans promise a new confrontation over the debt ceiling. And this sort of action is likely to continue at least through the 2014 congressional elections. In a sense, the carbon tax is another example of how House Republicans are stalemating efforts to deal with obvious public problems. In this case they’re not doing it directly; yet, by opposing virtually every significant legislative proposal, they raise the political costs for the Administration, thereby limiting the range of what can be proposed to just a handful of critical issues.
Bersani wins. Now what?
By now, most probably know that Italia's Partito Democratico (PD) held the second round of its primary election on Sunday and that Pierluigi Bersani defeated Matteo Renzi with nearly 61 percent of the vote. Nearly three million party members came out to choose the party secretary. They were also, effectively, choosing the party leader for the elections scheduled for next spring.
I noted in an earlier post that the PD primary was generally seen as a contest between a younger generation lead by Renzi, 37 years old and the mayor of Florence, and the old guard lead by Bersani, 61 years old, party secretary since 2009, and member of several earlier PD-lead governments. Now Bersani has won and the question is what this means for the party and its approach to the up-coming national elections.
I haven’t had time to read much commentary, but Marco Damilano has a good piece in the weekly magazine Espresso. He points out that Bersani and the PD leadership were reluctant converts to the idea of using a primary instead of the traditional party congress to choose the party secretary. Still, they did it and it is generally considered to have been a success, strengthening Bersani's position as a national leader and giving the party new credibility. Now, Damilano suggests, Bersani faces several challenges if he's to build on this. In quick summary, these are: (1) how to incorporate Renzi and his supporters into the party; (2) how to keep the old guard from pulling the party back to its old habits of opaque decision-making and meticulous balancing of contending internal “currents”; and (3) how to steer around talk of “Monti bis.”
In a sense, a larger question is what the PD primary represents for Italian politics. Was it, along with the Monti government, another step towards a healthier politics? On will it turn out to be an interesting diversion in Italian politics-as-usual? I know those two alternatives are too stark, but they suggest some of what's at stake in the next few months.
I noted in an earlier post that the PD primary was generally seen as a contest between a younger generation lead by Renzi, 37 years old and the mayor of Florence, and the old guard lead by Bersani, 61 years old, party secretary since 2009, and member of several earlier PD-lead governments. Now Bersani has won and the question is what this means for the party and its approach to the up-coming national elections.
I haven’t had time to read much commentary, but Marco Damilano has a good piece in the weekly magazine Espresso. He points out that Bersani and the PD leadership were reluctant converts to the idea of using a primary instead of the traditional party congress to choose the party secretary. Still, they did it and it is generally considered to have been a success, strengthening Bersani's position as a national leader and giving the party new credibility. Now, Damilano suggests, Bersani faces several challenges if he's to build on this. In quick summary, these are: (1) how to incorporate Renzi and his supporters into the party; (2) how to keep the old guard from pulling the party back to its old habits of opaque decision-making and meticulous balancing of contending internal “currents”; and (3) how to steer around talk of “Monti bis.”
In a sense, a larger question is what the PD primary represents for Italian politics. Was it, along with the Monti government, another step towards a healthier politics? On will it turn out to be an interesting diversion in Italian politics-as-usual? I know those two alternatives are too stark, but they suggest some of what's at stake in the next few months.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Plan for Ilva?
Finally, the Monti government says it has a way to deal with the Ilva steel mill at Taranto (Puglia). Last Thursday, the Council of Ministers adopted a decree which the government says will allow the mill to continue to operate and will ensure that it engages in a cleanup that will meet health and environmental standards. The key appears to be the terms of a autorizzazione integrata ambientale, an authorization for the mill to operate provided environmental standards are met. The Minister of Health, Renato Balduzzi, said that this authorization includes
So there we are. The steel plant is still operating; for the moment the magistrates are standing by their authority over it; and the government is standing by its decree. It looks like there will be some serious discussions in the next few days. But even if questions of authority get cleared up, there will still be issues of how the cleanup is to be paid for and how serious the monitoring will be. The current owners and managers do not have a record that inspires great trust.
“stricter prescriptions than in the past and it’s crucial that for the first time explicit indicators of public health conditions were included to be followed by a real health plan for Taranto and by the already announced monitoring agency established in conjunction with the Puglia Region” ["prescrizioni più rigide del passato, ed è determinante che per la prima volta siano state inserite esplicite indicazioni di tipo sanitario" alle quali "farà seguito un vero e proprio Piano salute per Taranto e la già annunciata costituzione dell'Osservatorio in raccordo con la Regione Puglia.”]This weekend, however, the national secretary of the association of prosecuting magistrates (Associazione Nazionale Magistrati) expressed concern that the decree could violate constitutional protections of magistrates' authority. At issue, I think, is the decree's ability to set aside the Taranto magistrate's July order taking control of the facility to prevent further health risks. Prime Minister Monti, Minister of Health, Balduzzi, and others in the government have responded, saying that they consulted widely before adopting the decree and that they are confident of its constitutionality.
So there we are. The steel plant is still operating; for the moment the magistrates are standing by their authority over it; and the government is standing by its decree. It looks like there will be some serious discussions in the next few days. But even if questions of authority get cleared up, there will still be issues of how the cleanup is to be paid for and how serious the monitoring will be. The current owners and managers do not have a record that inspires great trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)